lOMoARcPSD|255728 27
Intelligence is defined, in terms of national security
Intelligence is defined, in terms of national security, as a number of things including:
threats to the United States, any development or use of weapons of mass
destruction, or anything related to the United States national and or homeland
security (US National Intelligence - An Overview 2013). It is also something that has
the capability to drastically affect and alter the outcome of a conflict or situation.
According to the overview of the US National Intelligence, intelligence has the ability
to provide advantages against and within foreign conflicts, warn against potential
incoming threats, both foreign and domestic, and improve strategic understanding for
the causes and effects of conflicts, as well as many other things (US National
Intelligence - An Overview 2013). However, there are also limitations to what
intelligence has the capability to do. Intelligence can offer insight into conflict
scenarios, but obviously it cannot predict absolutely what may or may not happen.
There are also limitations within the resources of the Intelligence Community (IC)
and how different organizations may or may not be able to communicate and
cooperate with one another. This can include things such as ability to share
intelligence, how funding is managed within the IC, and the limitations of technology
(US National Intelligence - An Overview 2013). Some of these things correlate
directly with some of the points that Shedd made when discussing some problems
within the IC. Shedd discusses the barriers within the IC that prevent the sharing of
information between agencies and organizations due to bureaucratic reasons
(Shedd, 2015). In the same area, Shedd says that there should be adequate security
to ensure that the intelligence information is kept out of reach of individuals that are
out to compromise the nature of the intelligence. He also states that there should be
a deeper connection between analysts and operators in order to promote more
efficient intelligence collection and analysis to provide field operators faster access to
information (Shedd, 2015). This will allow them to more actively, safely, and
efficiently carry out their operations successfully. The third point that Shedd points
out is how beneficial the combination of the budgets of national and military
intelligence can be (Shedd, 2015). Shedd proposes that the combination of those
budgets can allow for more flexibility of resources and can also reduce some of the
intelligence redundancy that can occur when multiple agencies are collecting the
same information.
The IC is a collection of agencies that work both individually and collectively in order
to gather, collect, and manage the distribution of collected intelligence (US National
Intelligence - An Overview 2013). The IC is led by the Director of National
Intelligence, who is in charge of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
(ODNI), and he conducts the other 16 components of the IC (.US National
Intelligence - An Overview 2013).
“The core mission of the ODNI is to lead the Intelligence Community in intelligence
integration. Basically, intelligence integration means synchronizing collection,
analysis, and counterintelligence so that they are fused - effectively operating as one
team” (US National Intelligence - An Overview 2013)
This, in part, speaks to the first point that Shedd made in terms of needing to break
down the barriers that prevent interagency intelligence sharing. The IC has an
Intelligence Community Information Sharing Executive, which oversees the sharing
directives of the IC (US National Intelligence - An Overview 2013). This individual
lOMoARcPSD|255728 27
works closely with another part of the IC to “provide a holistic approach to
information sharing across the U. S. Government” (US National Intelligence - An
Overview 2013). So realistically, even if the system itself is not perfect, it appears as
though there are numerous steps in place to ensure proper sharing of US
intelligence.
Many agencies within the IC conduct research and testing within their own facilities,
which does include areas of cryptology and computer science (US National
Intelligence - An Overview 2013). With all of these agencies conducting their own
research, it would be fair to say that each individual agency is secure up to a point,
but that the transferring of intelligence items could be potentially problematic if the
security of each agency is not quite the same. This could allow someone seeking to
steal intelligence items to attempt to steal during times of exchange or even within
agencies if the security has weaknesses. There could also be fair arguments to be
made that if there were some kind of centralized security among agencies that could
potentially be an even bigger concern if somebody were to get access to that
system. However, with that in mind, the IC has several priorities when it comes to
information sharing, some of which include: promoting ease of access to information
for those who are authorized, attempting to implement a standard identity and
access capability, and creating the necessary tools to actively track users, trends,
and ensure the safety and security of collected information (US National Intelligence
- An Overview 2013).
One example of cooperation in terms of intelligence sharing can be found within the
Army. The Army’s intelligence is known as the Army Military Intelligence (US
National Intelligence - An Overview 2013). The goal of this military subset is to
provide information to operators and other military personnel efficiently and as soon
as possible when needed. There are 180 locations of this agency around the world
that help and provide access to this information for this specific purpose (US
National Intelligence - An Overview 2013).
It appears as though the funding for IC components is centrally overseen, with
subsections responsible for the actual appropriation of funding of various different
sections, whether national or military security. One component of the IC is the
Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for dividing funds out for all US
government activities; the House of Representatives and Senate appropriations
subcommittees for defense are responsible for the appropriation of funds for means
of national and military security (US National Intelligence - An Overview 2013).
Within military security, there is the Military Intelligence Program, founded in 2005
through the combination of the Joint Military Intelligence Program and the Tactical
Intelligence and Related Activities program, is responsible for funding the actions of
the Department of Defense and tactical operations (US National Intelligence - An
Overview 2013). The National Intelligence Program is responsible mainly for
assistance with matters regarding national security (US National Intelligence - An
Overview 2013). There could be arguments made against a fully consolidated
budget, if one area in particular overuses the allotted resources, then other areas
could begin to struggle if the necessary funding is not available.
The current system that we have in place may not strictly adhere to the ideas that
Shedd had about the way that it should be, but it does seem to be fairly close and
perhaps even in the process of further advancing towards those goals. There is
lOMoARcPSD|255728 27
plenty of evidence about the current system to support the ideas that Shedd had
made, and it still seems to be growing.
References
Director of National Intelligence. (2013, April 9). US National Intelligence - An
Overview. Director of National Intelligence. Retrieved July 4, 2022, from
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/USNI%202013%20Overview_web.pdf
Shedd, D. R. (2015, October 5). Intelligence and National Defense. The Heritage
Foundation. Retrieved July 4, 2022, from https://www.heritage.org/military-
strength-topical-essays/2016-essays/intelligence-and-national-defense
